Sussex R., Cubberley P. The Slavic Languages

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Indeed, the OVS order in Slavic is one of the commonest ways of expressing what

in English would be a passive, since one of its most useful pragmatic functions is

to reverse the topic–comment structure of the arguments of a sentence.

The possibilities of word-order variation, both for emphasis and for information

focusing, particularly in the spoken languages (11.2–11.3), are strongly facilitated

by the ability of Slavic to provide explicit grammatical marking of syntactic roles in

the sentence. In analysing the topic–comment structure of the sentence, we have

four sets of factors to handle simultaneously: the identification and delimitation of

the topic and comment; the grammatical division of the sentence into subject and

predicate; neutral versus inverted word order; and neutral versus emphatic stress.

There are many possible permutations of these four sets of variables, especially

since emphasis can extend over different sections of a sentence (S

vedova, 1970:

597–599). Marked intonation or word order (especially involving the movement of

heavy constituents) is used to focus specific parts of the sentence.

In impersonal or apersonal (7.3.3) sentences the neutral order with non-

contrastive intonation places the predicate first: compare the neutral (234a) with

the marked (234b); focused elements are bolded:

(234a) Rus neutral: xo

ˇetsja

pı

‘one feels (I feel) like a drink’

ne sly

no slo

v ‘no words can be heard’

But

(234b) Rus marked: pı

ˇetsja

‘I feel like a drink’ (not a meal)

slo

v ne sly

‘the words can’t be heard’ (but the singing can)’

In sentences articulated into Topic + Comment the stylistically neutral order is

Subject–Predicate. The reverse order, with stress on the subject/subordinate

element, also reverses the Topic–Comment structure. Examples include most

transitive- and intransitive-verb sentences:

(235a) B/C/S neutral:

otac pe`` v



a ‘father is singing’

(235b) B/C/S marked: pe``v



otac ‘it is father who is singing’

These stylistically expressive versions have contrastive stress focusing specific

constituents:

(235c) B/C/S pe``v



otac ‘father is singing’

(235d) B/C/S

otac pe``v



a ‘it is father who is singing’

7.5 Syntactic pragmatics 419

Note how further refinement of the interaction of word order with information

structuring is required to handle the placement of objects:

(236a) Sln strı

c je darova

l knjı

go ‘uncle gave a book’ (neutral)

(236b) Sln knjı

go je darova

l strı

c ‘the book was given by uncle’

(236c) Sln knjı

go je darova

l strı

c ‘it was a book that uncle gave’

(236d) Sln strı

c je darova

l knjı

go ‘it was uncle who gave the book’

420 7. Sentence structure

Word formation

8.1 Types of word formation

Slavic stands between Germanic and Romance in its utilization of word formation.

It does not share the long compound nouns found especially in German technical

vocabulary, or to some extent in phrasal expressions like ‘post-hostage resolution

crisis’ in some English professional styles. On the other hand, Slavic as a whole does

not follow the analytic tendencies of the Romance languages, which prefer coding

compound nouns as phrases.

In Slavic there are rich resources of word formation. For example, the root pis-

‘write’ forms prefixed (Slk podpis ‘signature’, pod ‘under’) and suffixed derivatives

(Slk pı

smeno ‘letter (of the alphabet)’, pı

somny

‘written, writing’ [Adj] ). There are

productive patterns of root-combination in nouns (Slk zem ‘earth’, zemepis ‘geo-

graphy’). Word formation is both a key component of the exploitation of roots in

different parts of speech, and a major source of lexical renewal and development

(chapter 9).

The scope of word formation includes prefixation, root combination and suf-

fixation other than inflexional suffixation (endings: chapter 5). Word formation

overlaps with morphophonology (chapter 4), since the form of roots and affixes

may be affected by the combinatorics of derivation. It overlaps with inflexional

morphology (chapter 5), since it is concerned with the combination of roots and

affixes, an area where the formation of verbal aspect spans both inflexion and word

formation. It overlaps with syntax (chapter 7), since word combinations, and

particularly the combinations of word-roots, share with syntax major patterns

like Modifier þ Head (Marchand, 1969; Selkirk, 1982). And it overlaps with lexis

and lexicology (chapter 9), one branch of which has to do with lexical productivity

and innovation.

For the purposes of this chapter we concentrate on ‘‘word formation’’ as the

combination of pieces of morphological material in the construction of lexical

words, excluding inflexion.

421

Word formation plays a key role in language use, expression and creativity in

Slavic: for instance, in the formation of compound nominal concepts (8.1.3) and in

the characteristic use of diminutives in conversation (8.2.2). Furthermore, in the

drive to adapt the languages to new social, economic, political, cultural and

technological demands, word formation has been a key resource which the Slavic

languages have exploited for lexical enrichment. Many word-formed neologisms

originated in governmental and social structures in the USSR, which is why

Russian has so often served as a model. Since the end of Euro-Communism,

Western models have been more active in the realignment of the Slavic vocabularies

to meet the new demands.

A fuller idea of the extent of word-formation processes in modern Slavic can be

gained from root-dictionaries and ‘‘grammatical dictionaries’’ (e.g. Worth, Kozak

and Johnson, 1970; Tixonov, 1985), where roots are listed with their arrays of

prefixes, attached roots and suffixes; and from reverse-order dictionaries (e.g.

Obratnyj Slovar

, 1974; Zaliznjak, 1977), where words are sorted alphabetically

from the right-hand end, so grouping together words with common endings.

The overall morphological and morphotactic structure of the Slavic word for

parts of speech other than verbs is as in (1a), and for verbs as in (1b):

(1a)

MORPHOTACTIC STRUCTURE OF THE WORD: NON-VERBS

Stem, consisting of

zero or more ordered prefixes

one or more roots, with or without a link-vowel

zero or more word-forming suffixes

zero or more affective suffixes

Inflexion

Zero or one reflexive or definite/deictic marker, depending on the

language

(1b) MORPHOTACTIC STRUCTURE OF THE WORD: VERBS

Stem, consisting of

zero or more ordered prefixes

one or more roots, with or without a link-vowel

zero or one word-forming suffix

zero or one stem expanding suffix or thematic vowel

Inflexion

Zero or one reflexive marker, depending on the language

In (1a–b) the stem and inflexion are the obligatory components of the inflecting

word. ‘Word-forming suffixes’ determine the part of speech and add information like

422 8. Word formation

‘abstract action nominal’. The last word-forming suffix usually determines the part

of speech, which is confirmed by the type of inflexion which follows: see (5) below.

The Russian adjectival root star- ‘old’, for instance, forms a number of derived

words, including:

(2) Russian lexeme star ‘old’:

(2a) sta

r-yj ‘old’

old-AdjMascSgNom

(2b) star-e

-t

‘to grow old’ [Imprfv]

old-Verb_suffix-Inf

(2c) u-star-e

-t

‘to grow old’ [Prfv]

Prefix-old-Verb_suffix-Inf

(2d) u-star-e

-l-yj (i) ‘having grown old’ [PastActPart]

(ii) ‘old, aged’ [lexicalized adjective]

Prefix-old-Verb_suffix-Past-Adj_suffix-AdjMascNomSg

(2e) u-star-e

-l-ost

-ø ‘old age’

Prefix-old-Verb_suffix-Past-Abstract-NounFemNomSg

(2f) sta

r-en

k-ij ‘old’ [Dim]

old-Dim-AdjMascNomSg

(2g) star-u

´ˇ

sk-a ‘old woman’

old-Dim_Aff-NounFemNomSg

(2h) star-o-sve

t-sk-ij ‘old fashioned’

old-Link_vowel-world-Adj_suffix-AdjMascNomSg

Not all the elements listed in (1) are available for all parts of speech or for all the

Slavic languages. Verbs, for example, do not have articulated systems of diminu-

tives in the manner of nouns, adjectives and derived adverbs, and have only a

limited means for encoding such semantic concepts: e.g. B/C/S pe`` vati ‘to sing’,

pevu

ckati ‘to hum’ (Browne, 1993: 343). Only Polish includes the reflexive marker

(Pol sie˛ ) in derived abstract action nominals from verbs with the reflexive, written

as a separate word:

(3) ‘to put on make-up’ ‘putting on make-up’ [Noun]

Pol malowac

sie˛ malowanie sie˛

cf. Rus grimirova

sja grimiro

vka

Suffixed definite markers are found only in Bulgarian and Macedonian, and

suffixed deictics only in Macedonian (5.5.1), though suffixed ‘‘definite’’ adjectives

occur in B/C/S and more marginally in Slovenian (5.4.3):

8.1 Types of word formation 423

(4) ‘an old man’ ‘the old man’

Blg sta

ove

k sta

ra˘ tc

ove

B/C/S sta`` rc

ˇo

vek sta



i c

ˇo

vek

cf. Cz stary

love

k stary

love

The selection of which affix to combine with a specific root or stem is not a simple

matter. Some prefixes, especially additive semantic prefixes like kontra-, occur with

noun and adjective roots with regular semantic and morphological results. Some

suffixes tend to occur with roots of a certain grammatical category: -tel

/-tel occurs

with action verbal roots to form agent nouns which are masculine or epicene:

Sln pı

sati ‘to write’, pisa

telj ‘writer’. The derived part of speech is normally marked

by the suffixes, particularly those for forms like agent nouns, abstract nouns, derived

verbs, adjectives and adverbs. The inflexion is an additional marker of word-class:

(5) Cz root uc

ˇ-

‘to teach’

(5a) uc

-i-t ‘to teach’

teach-Verb_suffix-Inf

(5b) uc

ˇ-i-tel-

ø ‘teacher’ (male)

teach-Verb_suffix-MascAgent-NomSg

(5c) uc

-i-tel-k-a ‘teacher’ (female)

teach-Verb_suffix-MascAgent-NounFem-NomSg

(5d) uc

ˇ-i-tel-ova-t

‘to play the role of the teacher’

teach-Verb_suffix-MascAgent-verb_formant-Inf

(5e) uc

-i-tel-sk-y

‘pedagogical’

teach-Verb_suffix-MascAgent-Adj-MascNomSg

(5f) uc

-i-tel-stv-ı

‘teaching, teaching career, teaching staff’

teach-Verb_suffix-MascAgent-Abstract-NomSg

(6) Cz root rychl- ‘quick’:

(6a) rychl-y

‘quick’

quick-MascNomSg

(6b) rychl-e ‘quickly’

quick-Adv

Slavic word formation lends itself well to the type of constituent analysis familiar

from studies like Marchand (1969), particularly since Slavic languages show rela-

tively little discontinuity of morphemes. Constituent analysis is useful not only in

analysing the structure of multiple prefixes, but also in identifying the structure of

complex words:

424 8. Word formation

(7) Blg varja

‘boil’ [Prfv] [varja

dovarja

‘finish boiling’ [Prfv] [do [varja

]V ]V

nedovarja

‘leave half-boiled’ [Prfv] [ne [do [varja

]V ]V ]V

The four main structural types of word formation in Slavic are all productive, though

to differing degrees. We describe them in turn: prefixation (8.1.1); suffixation (8.1.2);

root combination (8.1.3); and combined types (8.1.4). We then briefly cover the

morphophonological (8.1.5) aspects of word-formation before concentrating on

individual word-classes: nouns (8.2), verbs (8.3), adjectives (8.4), adverbs (8.5) and

other word-classes (8.6). The special cases of acronyms and stump compounds are

discussed in chapter 9. Our approach owes a great deal to Townsend (1968/1975),

who established word formation as a key component of Russian language syllabuses.

There is striking uniformity in the functional load of word formation across

the Slavic languages. All the languages possess similar types of word-forming

operations – prefixation, suffixation, root-combination and so on – and similar types

of grammatical processes – like the formation of agent and abstract action nomi-

nals and diminutives; the derivation of verbs and the formation of verbal aspect; or the

derivation of adjectives and adverbs. The differences arise rather in the use made of

different pieces of morphological material. An agent nominal with a cognate verb

stem, for instance, may require different suffixes in different languages, as with

Rus pisa

tel

, B/C/S pı

sac, Pol pisarz ‘writer’ (8.2). Or a given suffix may have differ-

ent semantic and stylistic properties, either absolutely, or in combination with

different stems, in the various languages. In Russian ma

len

kij ‘small’, now the

unmarked form of the positive grade, includes the diminutive suffix -en

k-, but in

the other languages this suffix has hypocoristic force, so that Cz malinky

means

‘dear little’, contrasting with the positive grade maly

‘small’.

8.1.1 Prefixation

Prefixation involves the addition of a bound morpheme to a root. Prefixes

may occur in sequences of three as the normal maximum, though four are possible:

B/C/S u-pre-po-do

-biti se ‘to put on an innocent face’ (Lekov, 1958: 14). Prefixation

can be divided into two main types: general semantic prefixation; and specifically

verbal prefixation, where the prefix can have a grammatical function as well.

We discuss the mixed ‘prefixation þ suffixation’ type in 8.1.4.

Semantic prefixation involves adding a prefix with the combinatorial semantic

effect of combining the meanings of the prefix and root or stem:

(8) B/C/S ultra-: u%ltrazv



an ‘ultrasonic’

kontra-: ko`` ntrarevolu

cija ‘counter-revolution’

8.1 Types of word formation 425

Most of the foreign-language prefixes of Slavic occur in this pattern, often but by

no means exclusively with foreign roots, as can be seen from B/C/S u%ltrazv



above (B/C/S zvu

k ‘sound’). Furthermore, not all the prefixes in semantic prefixa-

tion are of foreign origin: Blg svra˘ xzvu

kov ‘ultrasonic’ adds a native prefix svra˘ x

‘above, supra, ultra’ to a native root zvuk ‘sound’, forming a calque (chapter 9)

from ‘ultrasonic’. There are approximately thirty word-forming prefixes in each of

the Slavic languages. These patterns are of limited productivity, except when words

are borrowed from non-Slavic languages as in (8). Prefixed nouns, adjectives

and adverbs usually have suffixes as well, being typically derived from prefixed

verbs: ‘felon’ Pol prze-ste˛ p-ca, Rus pre-stu

p-nik, Blg pre-sta˘

p-nik. Examples like

Pol na-pis ‘inscription’, Rus vy

-xod,Blgı

z-xod ‘exit’, apparently suffix-less, are also

derivedfromverbalroots:Polna-pis-ac

,Rusvy-xod-ı

,Blgiz-xo

d-ja, and will be

regarded here as having a ‘zero’ suffix (8.2).

A more regular and productive pattern of prefixation in Bulgarian and

Macedonian concerns the comparative adjectives and adverbs (8.4.2): Mac a

ren

‘good’, po

-a

ren ‘better’, na

j-a

ren ‘best’ (both prefix and stem are stressed). Even

more widely based is the productive use of the negative prefix ne-/nie- in combina-

tions with adjectives and derived nouns:

(9) Slk neopatrny

‘careless’

nefajc

ˇiar

‘non-smoker’

nemluvn

a ‘infant’ (lit. ‘non-speaker’)

Ukr neljubo

v ‘dislike’ (ljubo

v ‘love’)

Rus nepogo

da ‘bad weather’ (pogo

da ‘weather’)

This pattern is not productive with verbs (the Czech, Slovak and Sorbian ortho-

graphic convention of writing the negative prefix together with the verb, as in

Cz de

ˇla

‘he does’, nede

ˇla

‘he doesn’t do’, is a separate issue).

In verbal prefixation (8.3.1) the prefixes are often related to spatial prepositions

like Cz do ‘to, up to, until’ (Cz konc

ˇi

t ‘to finish’, do-konc

ˇi

t ‘complete’) and pod ‘under,

below’ (Cz stavit ‘to place’, pod-stavit ‘to place under’). Verb prefixation is bound

up with the formation of verbal aspect. The prefix may perfectivize the verb

(Cz var

it ‘to boil, cook’ [Imprfv], u-var

it ‘to boil, cook’ [Prfv]). Or it may perfectivize

the stem and simultaneously modify the meaning in a number of ways: for instance,

by specifying the beginning or end of an action (Rus pla

kat

‘to weep’ [Imprfv],

za-pla

kat

‘to begin to weep, to burst out crying’ [Prfv]); or may bring about more

radical semantic changes, as in Cz pod-stavit (above). Verbal prefixation and aspect

formation interact closely with verbal suffixation. We take up these questions in

8.3.1–8.3.2.

426 8. Word formation

8.1.2 Suffixation

Suffixation in Slavic covers the larger part of word formation. Suffixal word

formation has two major roles.

In the first, suffixation causes the transfer of a word into another word-class, or

another sub-class of the same word-class:

(10) Cz hor-a ‘mountain’ hor-n-y

‘mountainous’

Cz rychl-y

‘quick’ rychl-e ‘quickly’

Cz pra

dl-o ‘linen’ pra

del-na ‘laundry’

st’asten-ø ‘happy’ [Short]

st’astn-y

‘happy’ [Long]

There are many word-forming suffixes: Russian, for instance, has over forty

different suffixes for forming masculine agent nouns, and a smaller number of

other suffixes for deriving feminine agent nouns.

In the second role, suffixation is involved in the semantic and/or stylistic

elaboration of individual word-classes. These processes include the formation of

verbal aspect, for instance in deriving imperfective verbs from perfective stems;

diminutives; gradation; and definite/indefinite formation. These processes cover

more than one word-class, and often interact with prefixation as well.

For instance, diminutives and augmentatives are typical of Slavic word forma-

tion, and occur in several word-classes: nouns, adjectives, adverbs and even

verbs. Diminutives express either overtones of emotion, or perceptions of size, or

both. Depending on the context, and the tone of voice, Russian knı

zˇ-ec

ˇk-a

may

mean ‘booklet’, ‘dear little book’, or ‘rotten little pamphlet’ – for instance, as a

means of belittling a colleague’s latest scholarly book (from Rus knı

ga ‘book’).

Diminutives and augmentatives are characteristic of the spoken more than of the

written language. Proper names in particular have many different diminutive

forms:

(11) Pol Bogumił-a (woman’s name) Bog-a Bog-n-a

Bog-un-ia Bog-un

c-ia Bog-us-ia Bog-usien

k-a

Augmentative forms mark an increase or excess of size, often with pejorative

overtones: Sorb pos ‘dog’; psy-c

-idło ‘great big horrible hound’ [Aug, Pej]. The

use of diminutives is endemic in certain contexts, particularly in the family and in

intimate personal relationships. Using non-diminutive forms to small children can

be a sign of displeasure or authority.

Diminutive and augmentative suffixes may occur in an ordered series: Ukr ho

los

‘voice’, holos-o

k, holos-o

-ek [Dim]. With adjectives and adverbs the motivation

8.1 Types of word formation 427

and usage of diminutives are similar to that of nouns, but the varieties of word

formation are more restricted (8.4–8.6).

8.1.3 Root combination

Roots may be simplex, as in (2a–g) above, or complex, as in (2h). Combinations

of more than two roots are unusual outside stump compounds (chapter 9), and are

not common with verbs: Rus velik-o-du

´ˇ

s-nic

a-t

‘to play at being generous’ (velı

k-ij

‘great’, du

s-a

‘soul’, via velikodu

´ˇ

sn-yj ‘magnanimous’). Examples like (12) involve

the combination of roots or full words. They may be combined in three main ways:

by direct combination with hyphens (12a), less commonly by direct combination

without hyphens (12b), and commonly with a ‘‘link-vowel’’ (12c):

(12a) Rus go

rod–gero

j (hyphenated) ‘hero city’

city-hero

(12b) Rus Lenin-gra

d ‘Leningrad’

Lenin-city (ChSl form, cf. (12a) and see 9.3.1)

(12c) Blg slab-o-u

m-en-ø ‘weak-minded’

weak-Link_vowel-mind-Adj-MascSg

Hyphenated compounds, and direct word combinations, have limited participation

in further word formation, though both parts may inflect (8.2). The pattern with a

link-vowel to join the two roots is common and productive. The choice of link-

vowel between /o/ and /e/ differs across the languages, and to some extent with

phonological factors (8.1.5, 8.2). The link-vowel pattern is able to link roots from

the major parts of speech: Slk chleb-o-dar-ca ‘employer’ (lit. ‘bread-giver’) consists

of chleb ‘bread’, the root dar ‘give’, and the agent suffix -ca, with the roots joined

by the link-vowel o. The compound words derived by this pattern are predomin-

antly nouns and adjectives. This type of complex word can participate in further

word-formation processes: Blg slab-o-u

m-en yields the adverb slab-o-u

m-n-o

‘weak-mindedly’, and there is also a parallel abstract noun slab-o-u

m-ie ‘weak-

mindedness’.

Word- and root-combinations may show various internal grammatical struc-

tures, of the familiar types identified in work by Marchand (1969), Selkirk (1982)

and others. Most such formations are nouns and adjectives:

(13a) modifier þ head:

Ukr lzˇe-svı

d-c

-yj ‘false witness’ [Adj]

falsely-witness-Adj-MascNomSg

428 8. Word formation